(January 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Celi Wrote: See, this is what I was talking about. There's no point in talking about this if you're just going to smugly dismiss whatever we say without offering an argument of your own.

The point is clearly there. All you have to do is see it.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:27 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Celi Wrote: See, this is what I was talking about. There's no point in talking about this if you're just going to smugly dismiss whatever we say without offering an argument of your own.

The point is clearly there. All you have to do is see it.

Typical Christian rationale. Just believe it. Just see it. Just accept it. I think you see the problem but just keep going.

The point is that Frodo's only method of responding to an argument is "nuh-uh".

(January 31, 2013 at 12:45 am)Question Mark Wrote: Typical Christian rationale. Just believe it. Just see it. Just accept it. I think you see the problem but just keep going.

Yeah you wish lol

Typical atheist rationale: rationale presented > ignore it, maybe it'll go away

(January 31, 2013 at 1:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 12:45 am)Question Mark Wrote: Typical Christian rationale. Just believe it. Just see it. Just accept it. I think you see the problem but just keep going.

Yeah you wish lol

Typical atheist rationale: rationale presented > ignore it, maybe it'll go away

Only until you present us with sufficient evidence to show why we should take your opinions as anything more than that. You have an immense sense of your own self-importance, but you've never once proved why we should have the same. Insisting something loud enough doesn't make it true.

(January 31, 2013 at 1:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 12:45 am)Question Mark Wrote: Typical Christian rationale. Just believe it. Just see it. Just accept it. I think you see the problem but just keep going.

Yeah you wish lol

Typical atheist rationale: rationale presented > ignore it, maybe it'll go away

See, just because you say a thing, doesn't make it true. You presented no rationale, you just stubbornly disagree with everything. It's rather like this woman I spoke to the other day who when pressed told me that god exists because the bible says so. When asked how she knows the bible is accurate, she says it's because god wrote it.

She genuinely couldn't see the flaw in that rationale, and even when pointed out, she dismissed the point as irrelevant.
You, by what I've read on this thread, don't even go that far. If you were the woman in the scenario, you wouldn't have explained about the bible being evidence, you'd have just told me to get stuffed and then thought yourself the winner, as you're doing here.

(January 31, 2013 at 7:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: you've never once proved why we should have the same. Insisting something loud enough doesn't make it true.

Apart from demonstrating the logic that you then repeat in agreement yet state your disagreement with you mean?

*holds up a mirror*

---

(January 31, 2013 at 9:00 am)Question Mark Wrote: You presented no rationale

Do you read?

(January 31, 2013 at 11:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 7:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: you've never once proved why we should have the same. Insisting something loud enough doesn't make it true.

Apart from demonstrating the logic that you then repeat in agreement yet state your disagreement with you mean?

*holds up a mirror*

---

(January 31, 2013 at 9:00 am)Question Mark Wrote: You presented no rationale

Do you read?

If you're simply going to be unpleasant, then I'm going to lose my inclination to speak to you at all. Which you might want, so if you want me to stop talking to you, do carry on.

(January 31, 2013 at 11:35 am)Question Mark Wrote: If you're simply going to be unpleasant

I have little inclination to repeat everything that I've said in this thread. Take your pick.

(January 31, 2013 at 11:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Apart from demonstrating the logic that you then repeat in agreement yet state your disagreement with you mean?

*holds up a mirror*

Oh, you make plenty of claims, nobody is denying that. You just fail to demonstrate why anybody should go along with your logic regarding god, a concept which, by its nature, has very specious evidentiary support.

For example, you say god is logical, which was one of the points I responded to. Where is your evidence for this? Because, on the face of it, a god who's three people yet one person yet he's also his son seems highly illogical, to say nothing of his actions.